Kyle G. Joseph et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 6, 201913618492 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/618,492 09/14/2012 Kyle G. Joseph 1048-152 3051 80360 7590 09/06/2019 Bainwood, Huang & Associates, LLC 2 Connector Road Westborough, MA 01581 EXAMINER GRIFFIN, TAMARA JEAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/06/2019 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte KYLE G. JOSEPH and SAMUEL J. CURRY1 ________________ Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON FENICK, and RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–15, 19, 20, and 22–33, which are all of the pending claims. App. Br. 2. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Action mailed March 29, 2017 (“Final Act.”) 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies EMC IP Holding Company LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed September 14, 2017 (“App. Br.”) 2. Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 2 THE INVENTION Appellant describes the present invention as follows: An authentication method and system provides a technique for authenticating a user [by] using data extracted from a social network. A graph is created where nodes represent individuals the user has a direct social connection that are greater than a predetermined social weigh[t]. Nodes from the graph are chosen where the distance between the chosen nodes is greater than a predetermined distance. Pictorial questions including a valid picture and invalid pictures are formed by randomly choosing individuals from the chosen nodes. Abstract. Independent claim 1 illustrates the claimed invention. It is reproduced below with formatting modified for clarity and with emphasis added to the claim language that recites more than an abstract idea: 1. A method of authenticating a user from data in a social network, the method comprising: [i] creating a graph, the graph including nodes and edges, each node representing an individual in the social network having a direct social connection with the user, each edge created where a direct social connection exists between the individual represented by each node and each individual represented by other nodes of the graph; [ii] removing from the graph any edge and a corresponding node representing an individual where the edge is connected to a node representing the user and a social interaction weight of the edge is below a predetermined social interaction weight; [iii] removing from the graph the edges connected to the node representing the user and the node representing the user; [iv] after removing the edges connected to the node representing the user and the node representing the user from the graph, selecting nodes from the graph to form a set of nodes and for each selected node removing all nodes adjacent to the Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 3 selected node and an edge connecting the selected node to the adjacent node; [v] for each node of the set of nodes, displaying a display window asking a question based on data from the social network regarding the individual represented by the node, wherein displaying the display window asking the question based on data from the social network regarding the individual represented by the node includes a) extracting a picture of the individual represented by the node from the social network, and b) displaying the picture of the individual as a clickable object within the display window, wherein the picture of the individual represents a correct response to the question; [vi] authenticating the user based on the user’s response to the questions; [vii] wherein selecting nodes from the graph to form a set of nodes includes selecting a number of nodes equal to a number of questions required to positively authenticate the user; [viii] wherein displaying the display window asking the question based on data from the social network regarding the individual represented by the node further includes displaying the question based on data from the social network regarding the individual represented by the node within the display window asking the question; [ix] wherein displaying the display window asking the question further includes displaying images of individuals in the social network with a similar demographic as the individual represented by the node as clickable objects in the display window, as incorrect answers to the question; and [x] in response to receipt of a user selection of one of the images of individuals in the social network displayed as incorrect answers to the question, selecting an additional node from the graph and displaying a display window asking an additional question based on data from the social network regarding the individual represented by the additional node. Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 4 PRINCIPLES OF LAW A. SECTION 101 An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 5 rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 6 B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE In January 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”). Under the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites the following: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 7 THE REJECTION AND CONTENTIONS The Examiner notes that the claims recite “authenticating . . . user[s] by testing their knowledge of their friends.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner determines that this abstract idea can be characterized, for example, as either of the following abstract ideas: an idea unto itself or a mental process that can be performed either in the human mind of by a human with pen and paper. Id. at 4. The Examiner also determines that “the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because” the additional elements beyond the abstract idea are generic computers performing generic computer functions. Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted). According to the Examiner, the recited general purpose computing equipment comprised well understood, routine, and conventional structures known to the industry and processing instructions in a conventional manner known in the art. Id. The Examiner further concludes that “[v]iewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually.” Id. at 7. Appellant argues generally, inter alia, First, the independent claims are each focused on a specific improvement to computer functionality. Second, the Examiner has oversimplified the independent claims by disregarding significant technical features of the express claim language. Third, the independent claims improve the performance of the underlying computer. Fourth, the independent claims are directed to a specialized machine. App. Br. 7. Appellant more specifically argues that [a]s a result of the wide availability of such text search engine technology, previous devices that performed authentication Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 8 simply by asking questions regarding friends in a social network and then accepting text answers could easily be compromised based on text information obtained using an internet search engine, causing high numbers of false positive errors. Id. at 8 (citing Spec. 2:4–6). Appellant continues, [i]n order to respond to the ease with which previous text based authentication systems can be compromised due to the availability of common internet search engines, and in order to reduce the number of false positive errors occurring while performing text based authentication that are caused by the malicious use of such internet search engines, the claimed invention extracts, from a social network, a picture of an individual who is strongly related to the user who is being authenticated, and then displays the picture in a graphical user interface as a correct response to a challenge question. Using a picture to represent the correct answer prevents attackers from simply determining the correct answer by performing a text search, and thereby effectively reduces the number of false positive errors made during the authentication process. Id. (emphasis added). ANALYSIS Step 2A, Prong 1 We agree with the Examiner that the appealed claims recite a protocol of “authenticating . . . user[s] by testing their knowledge of their friends.” Final Act. 3. We further agree that the protocol reasonably can be characterized as a mental process that can be performed either in the human mind of by a human with pen and paper. Id. at 4. Limitation [i] of claim 1, for example, includes the following language: Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 9 [i] creating a graph, the graph including nodes and edges, each node representing an individual in the social network having a direct social connection with the user, each edge created where a direct social connection exists between the individual represented by each node and each individual represented by other nodes of the graph; Prior to the advent of the Internet, it was common for police departments (at least in the movies) to mount photographs of victims and suspects on a large bulletin board or wall. It further was common to attach strings between the photographs using pushpins or tape to indicate business, financial, social, or romantic connections between the people appearing in the photographs. It also was common to have a hub-and-spoke arrangement of strings wherein plural suspects, witnesses, or victims have common connections to one central victim or criminal ringleader. This historically used means of tracking interrelationships among people reasonably can be characterized as a “graph” of “a social network,” as those terms are used within the claims. Such a graph includes “nodes” (photographs of people) and “edges” (strings). In such a pre-Internet graph, each node represented an individual in the social network having a direct social connection with another person at the hub of the network, and wherein each edge was created where a direct social connection existed between the individual represented by each node and each individual represented by other nodes of the graph. Restated, the entire language of limitation [i] recites a method of mapping personal relationships, and this mapping reasonably can be characterized as a mental process—observations, evaluations, and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. The 2019 Guidance recognizes such mental processes as constituting Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 10 abstract ideas. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. As such, we agree with the Examiner that limitation [i] recites a mental process, which is a recognized abstract idea. Limitations [ii] through [iv] recite various steps of removing specified edges and nodes from the graph. That is, these limitations correspond to the pre-Internet activities of removing photographs and strings from the police bulletin board, or on a more primitive scale, erasing pictures and interconnecting lines that were drawn with a pencil on a piece of paper. Stated another way, the social network, the graphs, the nodes, the edges, the social connections, as well as other claim elements (the social interaction weights, the removal of edges, the random selection of nodes), pertain to underlying abstract ideas. For example, a node is just an abstract construct representing a person. Spec. 2 (“each node represents an individual in the social network having a direct social connection with the user”). Furthermore, claim 1’s first four method steps—step [i], which recites creating a graph of nodes and edges, and steps [ii]–[iv], which recite removing various edges and nodes,—can be performed in the human mind or by a human with the aid of paper and pencil. For example, a human could create and organize or cluster nodes representing one’s acquaintances based on similar demographics: which acquaintances are patent attorneys, which acquaintances are on one’s sports teams, which acquaintances were in high school band and orchestra, etc. One could create with pencil and paper, edges connecting all of the nodes for a person’s friends who know each other, as recited in limitation [i] of claim 1. Then one could follow the next three steps of method claim 1’s limitations [ii]–[iv] until one ends up with four or five acquaintances who do not know each other. After this, one Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 11 could mentally generate and write down questions about each of these acquaintances, as recited in limitation [v]. As such, limitations [ii] through [iv] also reasonably can be characterized as reciting observations, evaluations and judgments that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of paper and pencil—abstract ideas recognized by the 2019 Guidance. Limitations [v] and [vi] recite the following language: [v] for each node of the set of nodes, displaying a display window asking a question based on data from the social network regarding the individual represented by the node, wherein displaying the display window asking the question based on data from the social network regarding the individual represented by the node includes a) extracting a picture of the individual represented by the node from the social network, and b) displaying the picture of the individual as a clickable object within the display window, wherein the picture of the individual represents a correct response to the question; [vi] authenticating the user based on the user’s response to the questions; App. Br. 14, Claims App’x (emphasis added to indicate the language reciting additional elements beyond the abstract idea). Challenge-and-response protocols that entail requesting that a person answer a question by selecting a correct picture long pre-dated the advent of the Internet. For example, it was a common practice before the advent of the Internet for teachers to provide students with a set of pictures on a piece of paper and verbally direct the student to respond with a non-verbal response (e.g., “Please circle the picture that is not like the others”). Another common pre-Internet practice was for police to provide a witness a photo- array of suspects, to present the witness a word-based challenge (e.g., “Do you recognize in any of these photographs, the person who committed the Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 12 crime?”), and to direct the witness to respond with a non-verbal response (e.g., “If so, please point to the photograph of the person that you saw commit the crime.”) Such challenge-and-response protocols reasonably can be characterized as steps of managing interactions between people and, more specifically, as steps that entail following rules or instructions. The acts of (1) managing interactions between people and (2) following rules or instructions are two examples of the abstract idea that the 2019 Guidance recognizes under the overall category of “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity.” 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The noted claimed protocol, then, reasonably can be characterized as another abstract idea recognized by the 2019 Guidance.2 The subsequent claim step of “authenticating the user based on the user’s response to the questions” reasonably can be characterized as the mental process of observation, evaluations, or judgment. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. To be sure, the noted claim limitations also recite additional elements beyond the steps of asking word-based challenge questions, receiving 2 The Examiner alternatively characterizes the claimed protocol as testing a user’s knowledge. The 2019 Guidance does not expressly list “testing” as a recognized subcategory of methods of organizing human activity. However, the 2019 Guidance does expressly list “teaching” as a recognized subcategory (2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52), and testing is a well- known mode or means of teaching. Testing also can be characterized reasonably as an interaction between people that includes following rules or instructions. As such, the Examiner’s characterization of the invention as a method of testing reasonably falls within the 2019 Guidance’s list of recognized sub-categories of certain methods of organizing human activity. Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 13 responses that entail pointing, and making mental determinations about identity authentication. For example, claim 1 requires that the pictures about which the user is questioned are displayed on a display window as clickable objects. However, the existence of these additional claim elements is addressed appropriately under step 2A, prong 2, and step 2B, if needed. The existence of additional elements does not negate the fact that the claims recite steps that are reasonably able to be characterized as abstract ideas. Limitation [vii] recites “wherein selecting nodes from the graph to form a set of nodes includes selecting a number of nodes equal to a number of questions required to positively authenticate the user.” This limitation merely further narrows the abstract idea of selecting nodes. But the level of abstraction at which the Examiner describes the invention does not change the accuracy of the Examiner’s determination that the limitation recites an abstract idea. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”) Limitations [viii] and [ix] [viii] wherein displaying the display window asking the question based on data from the social network regarding the individual represented by the node further includes displaying the question based on data from the social network regarding the individual represented by the node within the display window asking the question; [ix] wherein displaying the display window asking the question further includes displaying images of individuals in the social network with a similar demographic as the individual represented by the node as clickable objects in the display window, as incorrect answers to the question; Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 14 App. Br. 14, Claims App’x (emphasis added to indicate the language reciting additional elements beyond the abstract idea). As such, limitation [viii] adds the requirement that the challenge question about the picture be displayed as text. Writing challenge questions as text predated the advent of the Internet. For example, grade school children commonly received work assignments printed on paper where the students were challenged to select the drawing that is different from the others. Again, then, providing the challenge question in the form of text is directed to an abstract idea. The only element beyond the abstract idea is that the act of displaying the challenge text takes place on a display window. Similarly, limitation [ix]’s step of providing incorrect answers in the form of photographs constitutes part of the underlying abstract idea. The only element beyond the abstract idea is that the act of displaying the incorrect photographs is carried out in the form of clickable objects in a display window. Limitation [x] of claim 1 recites the following language: [x] in response to receipt of a user selection of one of the images of individuals in the social network displayed as incorrect answers to the question, selecting an additional node from the graph and displaying a display window asking an additional question based on data from the social network regarding the individual represented by the additional node. App. Br. 14, Claims App’x (emphasis added to indicate the language reciting additional elements beyond the abstract idea). Limitation [x]’s step of asking new challenge questions when the initial response is incorrect constitutes a more detailed recitation of the underlying pictorial-based challenge-and-response abstract idea. Like limitations [v], [viii], and [ix], the only element beyond the abstract idea is Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 15 that the new challenge photograph and query are displayed in a display window. For these reasons, we determine that all ten limitations of claim 1 recite abstract ideas. Step 2A, Prong 2 Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we analyze whether any of the additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. In this regard, Appellant argues that, when viewed as an ordered combination, the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer by making more accurate and secure, authentications of persons because of the existence of Internet search engine technology: As a result of the wide availability of such text search engine technology, previous devices that performed authentication simply by asking questions regarding friends in a social network and then accepting text answers could easily be compromised based on text information obtained using an internet search engine, causing high numbers of false positive errors. But for the ubiquitous presence of text search engine technology, there would in fact be no need for the present invention. In order to respond to the ease with which previous text based authentication systems can be compromised due to the availability of common internet search engines, and in order to reduce the number of false positive errors occurring while performing text based authentication that are caused by the malicious use of such internet search engines, the claimed invention extracts, from a social network, a picture of an individual who is strongly related to the user who is being authenticated, and then displays the picture in a graphical user interface as a correct response to a challenge question. Using a picture to represent the correct answer prevents attackers from simply determining the correct answer by performing a text search, and thereby effectively Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 16 reduces the number of false positive errors made during the authentication process. App. Br. 8 (emphasis added). This argument tracks the explanation of Appellant’s invention, as explained in the Specification: A nefarious individual can request the information found in public records to answer questions likely posed by authentication systems. Questions about a friend or connection in a social network can be discovered using text from an internet search engine query about the person. In contrast to the above described conventional authentication system where questions are formed from textual information, an improved technique involves authenticating a user by forming a plurality of questions about individuals answered pictorially who have a strong social connection to the user and a weak connection to each other in the user’s social network. Advantageously, the improved technique provides questions that cannot be determined from public records or from simply searching for text about a friend in a social network. Because individuals or friends are chosen from diverse areas in the user’s social network, a hacker or impostor cannot easily make determinations as to which picture in question relates to the correct individual. Spec. 2: 3–16 (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. The problem of imposters searching texts to find personal information that allows them to impersonate someone else to thwart an authentication challenge is not attributable to the advent of Internet-search-engine technology. That is, the problem is not unique or limited to computer environments. Scam artists have been using publicly available records and other textual information to impersonate others long before the advent of the Internet. Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 17 Furthermore, long before the advent of the Internet, the advent of the alphabet, which provides a commonly accepted system for organizing stored textual information, has made it easier to perform textual-based searches than pictorial-based searches. That is why pictures in a high-school yearbook historically have been arranged alphabetically—not by hair color or head shape. That is why it historically has been more time-consuming to identify criminals by looking at photographs in a mug book than to identify them by searching their names. To be sure, the advent of Internet search engines has made it immeasurably easier to text search vast amounts of information relative to doing so manually. However, this does not mean that the problem addressed by Appellant’s invention is unique to computer technology. In fact, nothing in claim 1 reasonably limits the claimed process to exclude the gathering of information from being practiced manually. Appellant’s inventions, then, reasonably could be characterized as a first recognition that one abstract idea (text-based authentication challenges) has an associated problem (the ability of imposters using text searches of available information to thwart authentication challenges) and a second recognition that this different form of this abstract idea (pictorial-based authentication challenges) is less affected by this problem. As such, the present invention does not provide a solution to a technical problem or improve the functioning of a computer, a technology, or a technological field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) (discussing such technological improvements as potentially amounting to significantly more than an abstract idea). Rather, Appellant’s invention entails reducing a problem that is inherent to Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 18 one form of an abstract idea by alternatively practicing a different form of the abstract idea. When viewed in this light, the fact that a computer is used to retrieve, select, and then display photographs as clickable objects does not constitute an improvement to a computer. Such use of the computer merely entails relying on a “processor” to “perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately[, which] is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com. L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (distinguishing a claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks from claims that “merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet”). Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification indicates that the method of claim 1 does not even improve, limit, or change the functionality of the particular computer on which the claimed pictorial-based authentication protocol is carried out. More specifically, Appellant’s Specification explains that the invention, as recited in claim 1, can be carried out on an automatic teller machine (ATM) or a point of sale (POS) terminal. Spec. 1:26–2:11, 5:20–30. Unlike other conventional computer terminals such as personal computers or mobile devices, which typically included search engines to allow a user to perform Internet-based text searches, ATMs and POS terminals typically did not provide such search engines or Internet-search functionality. Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 19 As such, the invention does not envision overcoming a problem of functionality associated with the computer terminal on which the invention is being practiced. Rather, the invention entails carrying out an abstract idea—a pictorial-based authentication protocol—on one computer terminal in order to restrict an imposter’s ability to perform a text-based search using other conventional computers or publicly available paper records to thwart an authentication challenge. For these reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us that the additionally claimed elements, viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, either improve the functioning of a computer, recite a particular machine or transformation, or provide any other meaningful limitations. MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e). That is, Appellant does not demonstrate that the invention integrates that recited abstract ideas of claim 1 into a practical application within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. Step 2B As noted above, the only claim elements beyond the recited abstract idea are (1) that the photographs are displayed as clickable objects within a display window and (2) that textual questions also are displayed in the display window. Claim 1, limitations [v], [viii]–[x]. The Examiner finds that these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the Alice framework because the additional elements are performed by generic computers performing generic or general-purpose computer. Final Act. 5–7. Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 20 Appellant’s Specification does not reasonably indicate that at the time of the invention, there was anything technologically challenging about either (1) displaying a photograph or picture in the form of a clickable object or (2) having a user respond to a text prompt by clicking on the clickable object. See generally Spec. (omitting any indication that Appellant invented the idea of providing photographs in the form of clickable objects). In fact, computer users have provided input by clicking on pictures, icons, radio buttons, or other clickable objects that appear on display screens at least as long as Microsoft Windows™ has existed. Conclusion Appellant has not adequately demonstrated that the Examiner erred in determining that claim 1 recites one or more abstract ideas, that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or that the additional claim elements add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, we affirm the § 101 rejection of independent claim 1. We also affirm this rejection of claims 2, 3, 7–9, 13–15, 19, 20, and 22–33, which Appellant does not argue separately. App. Br. 7–13. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–15, 19, 20, and 22–33 is affirmed. Appeal 2018-002315 Application 13/618,492 21 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation